JASA K2 Check Korea/China

JASA K2 Check Korea/China

The U.S.-Japan Mutual Security Treaty is celebrat- ing its fiftieth anniversary. Although the alliance’s original Cold War backdrop has long faded into history, the importance of the alliance remains undimmed. Indeed, China’s rise and growing assertiveness, not to mention North Korea’s bel- ligerence amidst a precarious leadership transition, have only elevated the utility of the alliance. With its prospective contributions to the defense of the global commons and the mitigation of natural security threats, the alliance is clearly essential to the future security of the United States and Japan. Yet these two longstanding allies can only achieve that security if they renew their alliance. With a new prime minister in Tokyo and an agreement on Futenma in place, this is a propitious time to pur- sue an ambitious, future-looking agenda, one that gets the alliance fundamentals right and expands U.S.-Japan security cooperation to meet the many challenges of the 21st century.

JASA Good – AT: US-China Relations

US forward deployment in Japan kills US-Sino relations

Xinbo 00 (Wu, professor at the Center for American Studies, Fudan University, and the Vice-President, Shanghai Institute of American Studies, Contemporary Southeast Asia: A Journal of International & Strategic Affairs, Dec2000, Vol. 22 Issue 3, p. 479-498, http://www.irchina.org/en/xueren/china/wxb.asp) JPG

In the post-Cold War era, Washington has been advocating an Asia-Pacific security structure, with the United States as the sole leader, and with U.S.-led bilateral alliances as its backbone.[1] This is, in essence, the idea of hegemonic stability. Beijing believes, however, that regional security rests on the co-operation of regional members and a blend of various approaches deemed useful, such as unilateral, bilateral, multilateral, institutional and non-institutional, Track I and Track II, and not just on one country establishing a set of bilateral security alliances.[2] Unilateral Security vis-a-vis Mutual Security The United States currently possesses the most powerful armed forces in the world. However, it continues to invest heavily in its defence industries to develop even more sophisticated weapons systems, so as to keep its superiority in both conventional and strategic weaponry. At the same time, Washington has been endeavouring to develop both national missile defence (NMD) and theater missile defence (TMD) systems, protecting itself from possible attack by other countries. Once the United States has upgraded its offensive and defensive capabilities, its security would be much enhanced. However, this kind of unilateral security would be at the expense of the security of other countries. The Chinese believe that security is always mutual, and when one side tries to enhance its security, it has to take into account the impact on the security of others. In other words, while any country has the legitimate right to develop its defensive and offensive capabilities as it deems fit, a responsible power should avoid seeking unilateral security, and instead promote mutual or common security. In this regard, Beijing has criticized the U.S. effort to build NMD and TMD because these would undermine both regional and global strategic stability. Absolute Security vis-a-vis Relative Security In terms of capability, the United States is now the most secure country in the world. Any other country that initiates an attack on the United States would invite destructive retaliation from the formidable American war machine. Gauged in terms of a national security coefficient, the United States is now 99 per cent secure in dealing with external military threats. Yet, Washington seems intent on seeking absolute, or 100 per cent security by continuing to invest heavily in research and development (R&D) for both defensive and offensive weapon systems. Nevertheless, if the United States were 100 per cent secure, then other countries would be 100 per cent insecure, and totally subject to threats or coercion by the former. To avoid such a situation, they would certainly react by developing their own means, and this would very likely create a vicious cycle of arms build-up, wasting resources and, at some point, increasing tensions. The Chinese, on the other hand, believe in relative over absolute security. They would be more contented with preserving a reliable deterrence capability, both conventional and strategic, than with seeking 100 per cent security. As Chinese security experts have contended, there is simply no such thing as absolute security, and any effort geared in that direction is both irresponsible and futile. Military Security vis-a-vis Comprehensive Security In the post-Cold War era, with the decline of the likelihood of war between the major powers and the rise of non-traditional security challenges, military means have become less relevant in the national security equation. Nonetheless, the United States remains heavily dependent upon military approaches, emphasizing the preservation of superior military power, strengthening security alliances, and maintaining forward-deployed military forces. Ironically, the United States has used force even more frequently over the past decade than it did during the Cold War.[3] In contrast to the force-prone military security approach of the United States, China has been advocating comprehensive security since the end of the Cold War. In Beijing’s view, security can best be enhanced by improving political relations, expanding economic interactions and pursuing security co-operation, such as transparency, confidence-building measures (CBMs), and military-to-military relations. China believes that over-reliance on military approaches is not only unhelpful for resolving disputes, but also runs counter to the prevailing trend of peace and development in the post-Cold War security environment.[4] Alignment Security vis-a-vis Non-alignment Security During the Cold War era, the United States forged security alliances with many countries in the world to pursue strategic competition with the Soviet Union and to contain the communist countries. With the end of the Cold War, Washington expanded the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) in Europe and reaffirmed its security alliance with Japan. American policy-makers have continuously suggested that security alliances, together with forward military deployments, remain the basis for U.S. security strategy in the Asia-Pacific. From a Chinese perspective, security alliances are relics of Cold War and bloc politics. With the end of the Cold War and the collapse of the Soviet bloc, there should be no reason to preserve, much less expand or strengthen, military blocs. Beijing believes that security cannot be pursued either through an excessive military build-up or security alliances. Military blocs, while enhancing the security of some countries, undermine that of others, causes suspicion and division, and even encourages confrontation among regional states. Therefore, China advocates the replacement of military blocs with regular state-to-state relations, and with a stress on improving and enhancing political and economic relations.[5] The differences in security concepts between China and the United States arise from a range of factors. One is the difference in their respective world-views. Washington believes that this is a unipolar world, with the United States as the lead power, and the idea of hegemonic stability is nothing but a corollary to this logic. On the other hand, Beijing insists on the trend of multi-polarization and rejects the idea of security under U.S. leadership. The second factor arises from the different situations confronting the United States and China today. The United States, as the only superpower in the post-Cold War world, feels less subject to external constraints on the use of force. With more resources than any other country in the world, it has the material means for seeking military superiority and absolute security. China, as a developing country, would rather devote most of its limited resources to its economic development, valuing a peaceful international environment in which disputes between nations are managed by peaceful means.

Directory: files
files -> Answer True False 2 points Question 2
files -> Integer programming and game theory
files -> 4 Integer Programming
files -> Bpa vehicle Window Repair Scenario #1 task: Procure vehicle window relacement. Objective
files -> Pop Warner History
files -> North Carolina Inclusion Initiative Mapping Where Children with ieps are Being Served Purpose
files -> Fall 2013 Spring 2014 Program Data: Standard 1 Exhibit 4d
files -> Hanban – asia society confucius classrooms network 2010 request for proposal
files -> Northern England’s set-jetting locations

Download 1.62 Mb.

Share with your friends: